Skip to comments.LIVE SENATE THREAD: "Nuclear Wednesday" for judicial nominations: C-span 2 - 9:30 am EST
Posted on 05/18/2005 5:48:45 AM PDT by ken5050
Welcome, all you Freepers, to the continuing C-span soap operas about judicial nominations. "The Guiding SEARCHLIGHT, " "As the SENATE Turns, "One NOMINATION to Live" "GERIATRIC Hospital" (for all you Byrd and Lautenberg fans out there). Follow along with us, as the Dems raise the level of histrionics, bloviation, pontification, and all around bad acting to new highs, er, lows...
BTW, for all my fellow political junkies out there, here's a little tidbit for you. It's said by many talking heads and pundits that only recently has the level of anger, indeed political bitterness, risen to such levels in Congress..well, here's a gem of an except ( and one of MY all time fav political quotes) from Sen William Borah (R-Idaho) from his speech on the Senate floor during the 1940 debate of FDR's Lend-Lease bill...
Borah was passionately against American involvement in the war in Europe, and was convinced FDR was secretly scheming to get the USA involved. He said that Lend-Lease, if passed "..will PLOW UNDER every FOURTH American boy.." As pure political vitriol, it's hard to top that...
For those of you old enough to remember the great American political novel of the 60's.... Alan Drury's "Advise and Consent"....( and, sadly, the lousy movie they made of it) during the interminable quorum calls and Dem rants, it might be fun to see which characters from the book and movie have present-day namesakes. My take so far..
Sen Seabright B. Cooley ( played brilliantly by Charles Laughton in the film...this is an easy one...Robert "Sheets" Byrd
Sen Fred(erica) van Ackerman..the hard left, Senate troublemaker, and the evil villian in the book.......Barbara Boxer...and..
yes folks..one of the characters in the book is a senator from Utah named......"Orrin" Knox...who knew?
I'll be in a meeting for a few hours..(darn it!!)..will rejoin you all about noon...Rush should be a blast today..
One suggestion for those who miss it live. C-span will most likely rerun the debate several times tonight. Their practice, fortuitously, in re-showing long Senate sessions..they cull all the quorum calls,the extranious fluff, and even those speeches that are boring..( can you say Lautenberg, and Jeffords..Hello?) So you can probably catch the good stuff...
So, what to expect today?
Frist is playing his card close to the vest, and rightly so. Keep the Dems off balance. The tone of the debate will be set in the opening remarks by both leaders. Will Reid continue to be nasty? It's expected that Frist will call up the nomination of Owens, and allow for 100 hours of debate, then invoke cloture, ( which ytakes 2 additional days) and if that fails, then move to change the rule. However, if the dems are really petty and obstructionist, he may well move for the rules change immediately.
What I'd love to see today..first thing..a warning shot across Reid's desk...have Cheney in the chair today as presiding officer... the Dems would go bananas..
Live Thread Ping
FYI..this is the place to be..please ping your lists, and apologies in advance if I missed anyone...
Or as Schumer said yesterday: "Cheney,Cheney,Cheney,Cheney,".
Ken, thanks for the thread. I understand that today will be debate but we may not see any decisions before Friday. Let's hope things move forward and that those who are wrong are shown for who they really are.
Special "Swamp Fox" ping just for you...(g)
Here we go! (Maybe)
I don't believe anything will happen except the GOP RINOS caving to the dems and media hacks. The so called "nuclear option" will fail. With or without Cheney. We will have some GOP primaries to take care of this '06.
I've heard next tuesday at the earliest.
Don't get frustrated -- Remember, Joe Six-pack will just be tuning in and we want them to see that the nominee is being fully debated (forget the fact that her nomination has been pending for 4 years.
Thanks! Let's toast to the Reid et al being burnt TOAST.
I like the way you think.
Let's not forgot a lot of the RINOs have had a recent hard slap (base closings)
A lot of the RINOs are starting to sweat. Info will be coming out on that IRS investigation.
We have more cards to play now.
The Senate convened at 9:45 a.m. and adjourned at 6:33 p.m. Three record votes were taken.
Next Senate meeting: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 9:30 a.m.: Proceed to Executive Session to begin consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.
But then, what do I know? LOL!
Frist palns to allow 100 hours of debate...I hope he keeps the SDenenate in session very, very late..into the wee hours every day..and even through the weekend..He can play nasty also..BTW..doncha love my reference to Sheets as Seabright B. Cooley?
Thank you for the ping! I HOPE the republicans are ready to rumble!
Good job. If they fail to act, then they actively fail.
Bears repeating. I'm keeping my jets cool while this whole thing plays out.
Laundry finished - check
Crockpot filled and cooking - check
Vacuuming done - check
Radio set to Rush - check...
Thanks for the history lesson and for the thread. Very interesting!
HONK Honk beep beep ahhhOOOOOOgah-h-h-h , ...hey , we're all out here [in a hot rod] Waitin' , we're goin' fo'a RIIIde
You all take good notes.....some of us have to go to work!....a ping to anything "unusual" will be appreciated.
History in the making :) - bring it on baby! :)
PROGRAM -- (Senate - May 17, 2005)
[Page: S5369] GPO's PDF
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, tomorrow morning the Senate will begin consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be U.S. circuit court judge for the Fifth Circuit. We will debate the nomination throughout the day tomorrow. I encourage Members who wish to speak on the nomination to come to the Senate during tomorrow's session.
I talked to the Democrat leader about the structure of the debate, and he will accommodate Members who desire to make statements. I encourage Senators to contact cloakrooms if they would like to speak on the nomination. We look forward to the debate on Priscilla Owen, and we hope all of the Members will participate.
Right you are ken.
Thanks for the pic...
I repeat: EVERY judge who has sat on the Supreme Court got there with a simple majority vote. The Filibuster was created as a blackmail tool for legislative matters not advise and consent matters.
Please hold off on your singing the Blues until we see the whites of their eyes.
LOL! Last load in the wash as we speak!
09:15 AM EDT
0:45 (est.) LIVE
Senate Judicial Nominations Debates
C-SPAN, Washington Journal
Patrick J. Leahy , D-VT
Orrin Hatch , R-UT
Judging by the latest rounds in the Senate, this could be incredibily B O R I N G.
But I have decided one thing: I want them to do it -- and I don't much care what anybody else says about it "on the TV." I don't care if it IS changing the rules.
They lie about Bush and us with wild abandon, so what does it matter? They will twist it however they twist it.
This may be a keeper. Rolling tape (or hard drive) is probably a good idea. The media will surely spin this to show the GOP as the evil cretins they are.(not)
I've already dumped my dogs at the groomers and am furiously folding clothes to pack for the beach next week!
Good morning, Ken, Carolinamom, Cboldt, Howlin, Sweet Caroline, AnniegetyourGun, and everyone!
Thanks for the thread, Ken and, do tell: what is the name of the lovely man who leads the Senate prayer? Isn't he also a fine baritone?
.."If you're waiting for the nuclear option today, you will be disappointed"...."It won't happen until next week".....??????
Anyone else hear this?
Four years ago today, President George W. Bush nominated Priscilla Owen to serve on the federal court of appeals. Justice Owen is an extraordinary Texan, an exceptional jurist, and a devoted public servant. Yet, after four years, she is still waiting for an up-or-down vote in the United States Senate. What's more, a partisan minority of senators now demands for the first time in history that she must be supported by a supermajority of 60 senators, rather than the constitutional rule and Senate tradition of majority vote. After four years, it is long past time to restore sanity and Senate tradition to our judicial confirmation process.
I know Priscilla personally, because we served together on the Texas supreme court. Throughout her life, she has excelled in virtually everything she has ever done. She was a law-review editor, a top graduate from Baylor Law School at the remarkable age of 23, and the top scorer on the Texas bar exam. She entered the legal profession at a time when relatively few women did, and after a distinguished record in private practice, she reached the pinnacle of the Texas bar a seat on the Texas supreme court. She was supported by a larger percentage of Texans than any of her colleagues during her last election, after enjoying the endorsement of every major Texas newspaper.
Unsurprisingly, then, the American Bar Association, after careful study, unanimously rated her well qualified to serve on the federal bench their highest rating.
Unsurprisingly, she enjoys the enthusiastic support of a bipartisan majority of senators.
Yet a partisan minority of senators now insists that Owen may not be confirmed without the support of a supermajority of 60 senators a demand that is, by their own admission, wholly unprecedented in Senate history. Why? Simple: The case for opposing her is so weak that changing the rules is the only way they can defeat her nomination.
What's more, they know it, too. Before her nomination became caught up in partisan special-interest politics, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee predicted that Owen would be swiftly confirmed. On the day of the announcement of the first group of nominees, including Owen, he said he was "encouraged" and that "I know them well enough that I would assume they'll go through all right." Indeed, just a few weeks ago, the Minority Leader announced that Senate Democrats would give Justice Owen an up-or-down vote albeit only if Republicans agreed to deny the same courtesy to other nominees.
These concessions are understandable, because the case against Owen is unconvincing. For example, Owen is accused of ruling against injured workers, employment discrimination plaintiffs, and other sympathetic parties on a variety of occasions. Never mind, however, that good judges like Justice Owen do their best to follow the law, regardless of which party will win and which will lose. Never mind that many of her criticized rulings were unanimous or near-unanimous decisions of the Texas Supreme Court. Never mind that many of these rulings simply followed federal precedents authored and agreed to even by appointees of Presidents Clinton and Carter, or by other federal judges unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate. Never mind that judges often disagree especially when a law is ambiguous and requires careful and difficult interpretation.
Justice Owen is also criticized for enforcing a popular Texas law generally requiring parental notification before a minor can obtain an abortion. Her opponents allege that, in one parental-notification case, then-Justice Alberto Gonzales accused her of "judicial activism."
This charge is unpersuasive for at least two reasons. First, judges disagree all the time that's why we have multi-member courts. U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens once accused Justice Byron White of "judicial activism," while in another opinion he accused Justice Lewis Powell and Sandra Day O'Connor of "judicial activism."
But second, and more importantly, Gonzales did not accuse Owen of judicial activism. Not once did he say that "Justice Owen is guilty of judicial activism." To the contrary, Gonzales never even mentioned her ruling. And he has since testified under oath that he never accused Owen of any such thing. What's more, the author of the parental notification law supports Owen as does the pro-choice Democrat law professor who was appointed to the Texas supreme court's Advisory Committee to implement that law. In her words, Owen simply "did what good appellate judges do every day. . . . If this is activism, then any judicial interpretation of a statute's terms is judicial activism."
The American people know a controversial ruling when they see one whether it's the redefinition of marriage, or the expulsion of the Pledge of Allegiance and other expressions of faith from the public square whether it's the elimination of the three-strikes-and-you're out law and other penalties against convicted criminals, or the forced removal of military recruiters from college campuses. Owen's rulings fall nowhere near this category of cases. There is a world of difference between struggling to interpret the ambiguous expressions of a legislature, and refusing to obey a legislature's directives altogether.
The Senate judicial confirmation process has been at times emotional and politically divisive, and that is unfortunate. But all Americans of good faith should at least agree that we need a fair process for selecting judges with full investigation, full questioning, full debate, and then an up-or-down vote. And all Americans should agree that, although nobody likes to lose, the rules should always be the same, regardless of whether the president is Republican or Democrat. Throughout our nation's more than 200-year history, the constitutional rule and Senate tradition for confirming judges has been majority vote. senators should uphold and restore that tradition and giving Owen an up-or-down vote, after four years of delay, would be an excellent start.
The Honorable John Cornyn is an U.S. senator from Texas and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He served previously as Texas attorney general and state supreme court justice.
The Dems have painted themselves in a real corner. They never thought the GOP would call their bluff, and now they have no way out. Their base would cruicify them. THis is a kamikaze mission for Reid, and BTW, affter the 2006 election, when the GOP gains again in both houses..look for Reid and Pelosi to get tossed overboard by their caucuses..Also, when the 7 finally do get an up-or-down vote...many will get 60+ in favor..
Thanks for the thread.
sleuth on here, also!
I have cleared my rather boring calendar today!!!!
Let's get ready to rumble!!!!!
He's a former US Navy chaplin..OXen will know.
Was anyone aware of this repeal of Clintons tax increase on SS benefits? The media was silent on this.
Sponsor: Sen Bunning, Jim [KY] (submitted 3/17/2005) (proposed 3/17/2005)
To repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S3078
Amendment SA 241 proposed by Senator Bunning. (consideration: CR S2914-2915, S2933; text: CR S2914)
Amendment SA 241 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay. 55 - 45. Record Vote Number: 74.
Sorry...forgot to ping you..regards
That report is probably accurate. Remember that no vote is taken until after many hours of debate. Emphasis on "many". If Frist calls for 30 hours of debate on Owen, that means there will be no vote until Monday afternoon.
I think they have to have one Dem say OK to get them out of Committee.